Hey David! I love your channel. Before I get started with my critiques, I wanna thank you for all the work you've done in arguing for gospel reliability; it's really strengthened my faith. Anyways, I'm a relatively new Christian and am still undecided on my stance on evidentialism vs. reformed epistemology in my apologetic, but am leaning towards the latter. I believe it's rather obvious that God uses circular reasoning given His status as the source & arbiter of all truth. I'll put my argument in a syllogism: P1. God is the most reliable source of truth P2. God will consult the most reliable source of truth in shaping his beliefs C. God will consult God in shaping his beliefs. One interesting thing to discuss would be how the Trinity plays into all of this. If each person of the Trinity each has an independent mind (which I know is a hotly contended assertion, but assume it simply for the sake of the argument), then it could be possible for God to not use circular reasoning if each member of the Trinity consults one another in a sort of "divine dialogue" to form their beliefs. It's a beautiful thought, but is rather difficult to wrap our minds around, as is any topic when the Trinity is thrown in haha.
Thanks for the argument. I think I would reject P2 of your argument because I don't think that God forms beliefs. Being eternally omniscient, I would hold that God has eternally had all of the beliefs which he holds. What would you make of this?
It seems to be that something is being ignored here... God is omniscient and therefore knows everything. He does not have the question only the answer. He has no doubt because of his omniscience. His reasoning is not limited as is ours. Why project our limited epistemological ability on the omniscient God?
Well I think that the question would be how does God know everything though? If, hypothetically, God were to wonder what justification he had for believing some proposition, how could he justify it without circularity?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Questions like this come up when we think of God in finite terms. God is the infinite creator of the finite and so his ability to know everything is not limited like ours. So what he believes is what is true because that is his nature.
It's unclear to me why "epistemic circularity" _per se_ is necessarily malignant rather than benign. Different philosophers give different definitions of what epistemic circularity is, one definition from Baron Reed ("Epistemic Circularity Squared? Skepticism about Common Sense" in _Phenomenology and Phenomenological Research_ Vol. 63, No. 1, July 2006) says "Epistemic Circularity occurs when a subject forms the belief that a faculty F is reliable through the use of F." But then, one's cognitive faculties taken as a whole would fit that description, as would God using his own mind in believing that he is omniscient and has reliable cognitive faculties. This type of epistemic circularity is how I understood e.g., Liz Jackson was referring to ("God has to use God's own mind in order to believe 'I am omniscient') when saying God has to use epistemic circularity. But given the quote from the video (0:11), perhaps the claim is not that epistemic circularity as defined above is objectionable, but only believing something on the basis of a epistemically circular _argument_ is objectionable, where an "epistemically circular argument" requires believing an argument's conclusion that some faculty or belief source is reliable requires presupposing that conclusion is true. I would agree that this sort of reasoning is objectionable. I would also agree that the basis for God's belief that he is omniscient etc. is not through an epistemically circular argument, but Plantinga (as far as I can tell) doesn't claim otherwise. Instead he seems to be claiming that not even God himself can construct a noncircular argument for his belief in his cognitive reliability, e.g., when he says "Not even God himself, necessarily omniscient as he is, can give a noncircular argument for the reliability of his ways of forming beliefs" in p. 125 of _Warranted Christian Belief._
"Not even God can know that His own faculties, or His own mind, is reliable - without using His own mind." Feh. This is the same sort of gobbledygook as "If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?"
Heavy. Rock misappropriated example of justifying God's omnipotence,l can build a brick wall deploying my engineering or building skills but I'm unable to lift it. Simple is that.
So the various times where God basically says His reasoning for what He does is "I'm God" like in Isaiah or Job at least seems to hint at some kind of circularity, isn't really circular?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 that's not an argument, that's even worse than a circular reason, ironic, given your name, you can't even reason an explanation Now explain why God saying "I'm the LORD God" as the reason He gives for some commands isn't circular reasoning
Faith Because of Reason, do you understand what epistemic circularity is? An epistemically circular argument defends the reliability of a source of belief by relying on premises that are themselves based on the source. If you believe in a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence, that God would be not be capable of anything but epistemic circularity. This is clear from basic logic. Of course, there are many other extreme logical fallacies to anything being "all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing" which make it clearly impossible that come before to the issue over whether such a God, if it existed, could not get out of epistemic circularity.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 An epistemically circular argument defends the reliability of a source of belief by relying on premises that are themselves based on the source. So what source can a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence that is not based upon that God? By definition of that God, there would be no such source. By that definition of a God the source of everything would be from that God and thus of that God.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 yeah, I'm happy to agree that God depends upon his own belief sources in order to have beliefs. What I'm going to deny is that the epistemic justification for those beliefs is constituted by the sources from which they come. I don't accept the principle that coming from a reliable belief source is either necessary or sufficient for epistemic justification.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381, if you are just settling for "I am God, therefor whatever I say is correct", then you can chose to believe such a God or whoever or whatever calls itself such a God. That is your choice of belief. However, that does not alter the logical rational reasoning fact that such a defined God making an epistemic argument about anything, (relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation), that when doing so that God epistemic argument would rely upon a source based upon that God. It would not be possible for such a defined God to do otherwise. It is similar to the logical fallacy that pops up when you define a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence; and then say anything in that existence happens by choice. You cannot logically and rationally have both of these things be true. Another example of such logical fallacy is saying that such a God can change their mind, learn something new, not know something, make a new decision, etc. Now, the greatest God I believe in is all-present within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond. The greatest God I believe in contains all-knowledge within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond. The greatest God I believe in contains and is all-power within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond. But, that greatest God I believe in does not conflict with logic and fits what we know of science. Still, that is just my opinion and belief as to what the greatest God I believe in is, so certainly no one else needs to believe in it.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 I never said that this was my position. Indeed, it's not even close. You seem to be assuming that God's beliefs would have to be justified via argument. I deny this.
My favorite is the argument from the resurrection of Jesus. But I also like arguments from consciousness, contingency arguments, and cosmological arguments.
all knowledge about God is wrong. doubting this is doubting the greatness of God. we can know God and only then do we know the limitations of knowledge. we have yet to know the reality of these words from Paul, ""let God be true and every man a liar"
God is petfectly unified. God is His mind. Reality is in God's mind. Something being in God's mind and that being true is the same thing. Everything that is is, by virtue of being in God. God "thinking" is that what God thinks existing. God doesn't have believes, God only knows. Arguments are indirect ways of comming to knowledge and thus always somewhat questionable. God's knowledge is direct.
@@cromi4194 I don't regard pointing out that a statement is nonsensical as an insult to the person making the statement. If you do, then it's time to grow a thicker skin.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 it is not wise because the likelihood of viewers comming back to your channel is reduced by such a comment. You didn't offer anything in your comment. People will just think you're mean and ignorant. I assume that you are making these videos as an expression of evangelization. Being dismissive like that will exactly have the opposite effect. It's really a dumb move.
I suppose all axioms are epistemologically circular. There is nothing more basic to justify them, so they have to be accepted because they are acceptable, circular reasoning... of a sort. And if God is the creator of all things, then there is nothing more basic from which God was created. God is an axiom that can not have any other justification. He is because he is.
@tosafmj_dotcom well it means that there are no more basic beliefs to justify them. But this hardly means that there is nothing at all to justify them.
Hey David! I love your channel. Before I get started with my critiques, I wanna thank you for all the work you've done in arguing for gospel reliability; it's really strengthened my faith. Anyways, I'm a relatively new Christian and am still undecided on my stance on evidentialism vs. reformed epistemology in my apologetic, but am leaning towards the latter. I believe it's rather obvious that God uses circular reasoning given His status as the source & arbiter of all truth. I'll put my argument in a syllogism:
P1. God is the most reliable source of truth
P2. God will consult the most reliable source of truth in shaping his beliefs
C. God will consult God in shaping his beliefs.
One interesting thing to discuss would be how the Trinity plays into all of this. If each person of the Trinity each has an independent mind (which I know is a hotly contended assertion, but assume it simply for the sake of the argument), then it could be possible for God to not use circular reasoning if each member of the Trinity consults one another in a sort of "divine dialogue" to form their beliefs. It's a beautiful thought, but is rather difficult to wrap our minds around, as is any topic when the Trinity is thrown in haha.
Thanks for the argument. I think I would reject P2 of your argument because I don't think that God forms beliefs. Being eternally omniscient, I would hold that God has eternally had all of the beliefs which he holds. What would you make of this?
It seems to be that something is being ignored here... God is omniscient and therefore knows everything. He does not have the question only the answer. He has no doubt because of his omniscience. His reasoning is not limited as is ours. Why project our limited epistemological ability on the omniscient God?
Well I think that the question would be how does God know everything though? If, hypothetically, God were to wonder what justification he had for believing some proposition, how could he justify it without circularity?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Questions like this come up when we think of God in finite terms. God is the infinite creator of the finite and so his ability to know everything is not limited like ours. So what he believes is what is true because that is his nature.
@@alexonthestreet while all of that is true, I don't think that really answers the underlying question of what it is that justifies God's beliefs.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381So are you claiming that God has to justify himself to you?
@@alexonthestreet no, just that his beliefs have to have justification in order to qualify as knowledge
It's unclear to me why "epistemic circularity" _per se_ is necessarily malignant rather than benign. Different philosophers give different definitions of what epistemic circularity is, one definition from Baron Reed ("Epistemic Circularity Squared? Skepticism about Common Sense" in _Phenomenology and Phenomenological Research_ Vol. 63, No. 1, July 2006) says "Epistemic Circularity occurs when a subject forms the belief that a faculty F is reliable through the use of F." But then, one's cognitive faculties taken as a whole would fit that description, as would God using his own mind in believing that he is omniscient and has reliable cognitive faculties. This type of epistemic circularity is how I understood e.g., Liz Jackson was referring to ("God has to use God's own mind in order to believe 'I am omniscient') when saying God has to use epistemic circularity.
But given the quote from the video (0:11), perhaps the claim is not that epistemic circularity as defined above is objectionable, but only believing something on the basis of a epistemically circular _argument_ is objectionable, where an "epistemically circular argument" requires believing an argument's conclusion that some faculty or belief source is reliable requires presupposing that conclusion is true. I would agree that this sort of reasoning is objectionable.
I would also agree that the basis for God's belief that he is omniscient etc. is not through an epistemically circular argument, but Plantinga (as far as I can tell) doesn't claim otherwise. Instead he seems to be claiming that not even God himself can construct a noncircular argument for his belief in his cognitive reliability, e.g., when he says "Not even God himself, necessarily omniscient as he is, can give a noncircular argument for the reliability of his ways of forming beliefs" in p. 125 of _Warranted Christian Belief._
"Not even God can know that His own faculties, or His own mind, is reliable - without using His own mind." Feh. This is the same sort of gobbledygook as "If God is omnipotent, can He create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?"
Heavy. Rock misappropriated example of justifying God's omnipotence,l can build a brick wall deploying my engineering or building skills but I'm unable to lift it. Simple is that.
He. Doesn't do anything which is contrary to logic like he cannot add 2+2 makes 5 perse.
So the various times where God basically says His reasoning for what He does is "I'm God" like in Isaiah or Job at least seems to hint at some kind of circularity, isn't really circular?
I don't think you know what circular reasoning is
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 that's not an argument, that's even worse than a circular reason, ironic, given your name, you can't even reason an explanation
Now explain why God saying "I'm the LORD God" as the reason He gives for some commands isn't circular reasoning
Faith Because of Reason, do you understand what epistemic circularity is? An epistemically circular argument defends the reliability of a source of belief by relying on premises that are themselves based on the source.
If you believe in a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence, that God would be not be capable of anything but epistemic circularity. This is clear from basic logic.
Of course, there are many other extreme logical fallacies to anything being "all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing" which make it clearly impossible that come before to the issue over whether such a God, if it existed, could not get out of epistemic circularity.
If it's clear from basic logic, lay out the syllogism.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 An epistemically circular argument defends the reliability of a source of belief by relying on premises that are themselves based on the source.
So what source can a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence that is not based upon that God? By definition of that God, there would be no such source. By that definition of a God the source of everything would be from that God and thus of that God.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 yeah, I'm happy to agree that God depends upon his own belief sources in order to have beliefs. What I'm going to deny is that the epistemic justification for those beliefs is constituted by the sources from which they come. I don't accept the principle that coming from a reliable belief source is either necessary or sufficient for epistemic justification.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381, if you are just settling for "I am God, therefor whatever I say is correct", then you can chose to believe such a God or whoever or whatever calls itself such a God. That is your choice of belief.
However, that does not alter the logical rational reasoning fact that such a defined God making an epistemic argument about anything, (relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation), that when doing so that God epistemic argument would rely upon a source based upon that God. It would not be possible for such a defined God to do otherwise.
It is similar to the logical fallacy that pops up when you define a God who is all-present, all-powerful, and all-knowing then created all existence; and then say anything in that existence happens by choice. You cannot logically and rationally have both of these things be true. Another example of such logical fallacy is saying that such a God can change their mind, learn something new, not know something, make a new decision, etc.
Now, the greatest God I believe in is all-present within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond.
The greatest God I believe in contains all-knowledge within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond.
The greatest God I believe in contains and is all-power within the Observable Universe and some unknown distance in space-time beyond.
But, that greatest God I believe in does not conflict with logic and fits what we know of science.
Still, that is just my opinion and belief as to what the greatest God I believe in is, so certainly no one else needs to believe in it.
@@MusingsFromTheJohn00 I never said that this was my position. Indeed, it's not even close.
You seem to be assuming that God's beliefs would have to be justified via argument. I deny this.
Then why do circles exist?
Hey, which is your favourite argument for the existence of god? And which one succeeds?
My favorite is the argument from the resurrection of Jesus.
But I also like arguments from consciousness, contingency arguments, and cosmological arguments.
all knowledge about God is wrong. doubting this is doubting the greatness of God. we can know God and only then do we know the limitations of knowledge.
we have yet to know the reality of these words from Paul,
""let God be true and every man a liar"
Rare coal mine moment from plantinga
As in, canary in the coal mine?
God is petfectly unified. God is His mind. Reality is in God's mind. Something being in God's mind and that being true is the same thing. Everything that is is, by virtue of being in God. God "thinking" is that what God thinks existing.
God doesn't have believes, God only knows. Arguments are indirect ways of comming to knowledge and thus always somewhat questionable. God's knowledge is direct.
This sounds like some next level nonsense TBH
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 and this is a statement devoid of content
Also insulting a person commenting on your channel sounds counterproductive to me. Not wise at all.
@@cromi4194 I don't regard pointing out that a statement is nonsensical as an insult to the person making the statement. If you do, then it's time to grow a thicker skin.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 it is not wise because the likelihood of viewers comming back to your channel is reduced by such a comment. You didn't offer anything in your comment. People will just think you're mean and ignorant. I assume that you are making these videos as an expression of evangelization. Being dismissive like that will exactly have the opposite effect. It's really a dumb move.
I suppose all axioms are epistemologically circular. There is nothing more basic to justify them, so they have to be accepted because they are acceptable, circular reasoning... of a sort. And if God is the creator of all things, then there is nothing more basic from which God was created. God is an axiom that can not have any other justification. He is because he is.
Why think that there is nothing to justify basic beliefs?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381because otherwise it would be circular ;)
@@JonDoe-zq2he what would be circular?
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
I suppose they are called basic beliefs because there is nothing more basic to justify them.
@tosafmj_dotcom well it means that there are no more basic beliefs to justify them. But this hardly means that there is nothing at all to justify them.